Let finish tonight with this.

The Republicans could win this election just on the math. You could argue that if they can't make something of an 8-plus jobless rate and all the underemployment out there, they shouldn't even be in the running. The point is, and we can mostly agree on this across the spectrum, they shouldn't do some of the stuff they're doing on the eve of this convention, desperate or not. 

Welfare cheats. Food stamps. The whole "birther" game is below a major political party, including and especially the party of Lincoln. 

I don't know why Romney hooked up with Donald Trump, don't know why Trump himself is pushing the "birther" charge so hard. 

There ought to be a conscience in this business. John McCain showed his last time. He refused to play the ethnic card, the "He's a Muslim" charge. And John McCain was losing when he refused to get down and dirty. Why's Romney, who's head-to-head now, and now faces a huge chance to pull ahead in his acceptance speech and in the three big primetime debates—why's he taking these shots at welfare people and telling knee-slappers about the "birther" sickness? 

That's a question that needs an answer. More important, it's a question we shouldn't have to be asking after what this country's been through all these years. 

Let me finish tonight with the wayward shift of the rightward party. 

I have thought for awhile that if President Obama were to lose this election, it would be because voters believed both candidates—he and Mr. Romney—were both to the left of where they say they are.  

Obama would successfully be accused of being intent on a far larger government role than he has supported, Romney being able to sell himself as a candidate far more moderate—far more to the left—of the commitments he made in the primaries and since. 

Now, given the events of the last weeks, I think that scenario is unlikely. It's increasingly obvious that Mitt Romney, whatever stance he took as governor in Massachusetts, has married the right wing of his party: the neo-cons, the no-taxers, the religious right, the hardliners against abortions rights. He is not, nor can he be confused, with the guy who pushed health care in Massachusetts, who once called himself stronger on gay rights than Ted Kennedy. That memory is as faded as the old newspapers of that era—if any remain anywhere—except in Romney's scrapbook. 

No, I think the rise of Todd Akin, the picking of Paul Ryan, the emergence of Ryan's hardline position on abortion, the whole menu of it means that Romney has set the table for himself. He's made too many deals with the right that he cannot disentangle himself from. 

He's one of the people now he's gotten in bed with—and that, ladies and gentlemen, is a fact. 

Let me finish tonight with this.

From the beginnings of our republic, we Americans have been pioneers. We have gone, as they say in Star Trek, "where no man has gone before."

It's not just geographic exploration. Science, understanding the wonders of the universe, has been an American frontier since the days when Ben Franklin put his kite in the air during a storm and excited us with the nature of electricity, and Thomas Edison and his streak of genius that seemed to invent just about everything. How proud we are each year when the American physicists and scientists and chemists bring home their bundles of Nobel Prizes. And, yes, the engineers and their wondrous ability to exploit what we've discovered. (Yes, we got to the moon!)

I use a cell phone and am in wonder at it, still in wonder at the radio wave that can come through concrete walls. I'm in wonder at the information I can command on a little device small enough to fit in my pocket. Isn't science wonderful? Aren't the people who did it all wonderful? Wasn't Ronald Reagan right when he said his generation, the World War II generation, were all born without all this wonder, that they were the ones who developed it?

I don't know where the new ignorance came from—this crazy rejection of all that mankind has learned, this refusal to allow scientific evidence that the earth is getting warmer, even as the snow and ice melt and the summers heat and lengthen. I don't know what came of us, those religious among us, who believed in the moral truths in the Bible but have understood through the discovery of bones and other artifacts the long history of this planet that pre-dated the life of Abraham.  

The reason we succeed, the reason America has marched this great march, is to learn and then to do the right thing. We cannot do good if we refuse to the do the other. Human knowledge is good thing.   

Perhaps both parties should put that simple declaration in their platforms this year.   

Let me finish tonight with the crazy story in Missouri.

The candidate in question, Todd Akin, raised his concern that women who charge rape may not have a "legitimate" case.

Well, that is Mr. Akin's case and the story continues. Why a candidate for major national office would make a case like this tells you much of what you need to know about the thinking behind it.

Why would a person belittle or try to undermine the testimony of a woman charging rape? Why would they do such a thing? Why?

A couple possibilities arise. One is that this person, Todd Akin, doesn't want to allow an exception for having an abortion. To avoid allowing that exception, he argues that women who are raped cannot get pregnant.  

Another possibility here, and I think my women colleagues felt this on hearing that word he used, that he simply doesn't take the word of women on this most violent question. The second he voiced that word "legitimate," he was calling into question the basic veracity of women on the stand in a courtroom.   

Why would he do such a thing?  

That is the question he needs to answer and the voters of Missouri are going to keep asking it as long as he stands out there as a candidate.

Let me finish tonight with, again, the stakes this November.

You can vote your impulse in this election. You can say, "Well, the economy's not growing the way it should. Let's change presidents." Or you can look at the choices here and decide who is the best bet to lead the kind of country you believe in. That includes, but isn't limited to, the kind of economic growth you'd like to see this month or next. 

That bigger choice is getting heftier by the minute.

You vote for Obama, you get a second start at what he's been trying to do: some smart use of government action to stimulate a fairer, safer America. 

You vote for Romney and you get a slew of things: 

You get him — the "him" he's created of himself the past few years. I'm still not all that sure what that means in personal terms. But if you take Romney, the candidate, at his word — he's a dedicated disciple of the right — tax breaks for the wealthy, no deals with Democrats on cutting the deficit, no abortion rights, no marriage equality, a war footing with Iran, militance toward China, a cold relationship with Russia... You get something like what the hard right has wanted for years and on every front. 

You also get the whole cotillion: you get Bachmann and her loony notions of Muslim Brotherhood infiltration into Hillary's office, of Democratic "anti-American" types sifting through the Capitol cloakrooms. You get the equally lunar "birther" types, the folks Speaker Boehner wistfully calls the "knuckle-draggers." You get the people who hate science, like this character Akin with his quack theories about rape and impregnation. You get the real hawks like John Bolton, just waiting for another empty suit to fill with the latest war they've got on their agenda. With the Bushes they had one for the first, two for the second. Dubya was much emptier as suits go: all hat and no...well, you fill in the blank. 

The point is, getting Romney, the dedicated rightwing man-for-hire, is one thing. But we're reminded again tonight with this character from Missouri and his "legitimate rape" gospel that all is not right in nut country. 

Just remember, if you vote for Romney, you not only get him, you get the march of the clowns that didn't end with Santorum and Gingrich. It marches on, taking only short breaks after killing the debt deal, downgrading the country's bond rating, a quick skinny dip in the Galilee, to their next snappy march to armageddon.

Let me finish tonight with this.  

Think about a blind date. Remember those? It's when you go out on a potentially romantic evening with someone you've never met before who somebody you trust says you're going to click with, maybe even marry.

Poor Mitt Romney has the look these days of a guy stuck on one such date. He keeps trying to say it's all going smoothly. They like the same restaurant, they both laughed at the same time in the movie...but there seems to be something wrong here. 

This date of his is deadly serious about things, really seems stubbornly committed to what's important, what's not. Turns out couldn't be less like him. He wants to play the field, keep his options open, see what comes along, make the best of things. He's not really all that serious about getting serious. 

His blind date is deadly serious. That's why he went out on this date, to find someone who's the same way. 

So if this thing we're all watching — this tango between Mitt and Paul — seems like it's not going so swimmingly, the reason is right there in their faces. One of these believes deeply in what matters in this world, and the other just wants to get through the day. One is a person of deep and serious conviction; the other is open to whatever comes along. 

Is it going to work? If life is any example, the person who really cares about something — religion, deep political belief — is the one who calls the shots. The one who doesn't goes along. 

I'd keep my eye on this Ryan person. I think he's the one to tell us which way this duo is headed. Ryan, not Romney, believes in things. The other part of this Odd Couple just wants that ring on his finger. 

Let me finish tonight with this: 

"We will answer their demand for a gold standard by saying to them: You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns. You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold." 

This was the Democratic candidate for president William Jennings Bryan, accepting the 1896 nomination. 

What would Mitt Romney say of this? Would he say that the Great Commoner was out of bounds, that he was running a negative campaign?

The great irony, the great fact behind this latest Romney tact, is that all he says about Vice President Biden and his metaphor about "chains" and economic repression pale before the language of past campaigns. The phrase, Mr. Romney, is populism — the same populism we got from Andy Jackson and Harry Truman and Democrats since anyone can remember. So I can say: get used to it!

Now for your crowd. A word is in order about the words your fond cotillion has been employing out there in voter land.

Let's just say, it wasn't the Democrats who brought up the church the Republican candidate attended. It was the Republicans who attacked the church the Democratic candidate did.

It wasn't the Democrats who attacked the background of the Republican candidate, Mr. Romney. It was the cackling mob on the right that continues even now to question the President's American birth without a single demurral from the Republican candidate. Not a word does he say when his allies bark and bay in the twilight that the President is an illegal immigrant, snuck into the country after his birth to grab the White House. 

And it hasn't been the Democrats attacking the other candidate's loyalty. Not a word. You never hear a Democrat question or even mention the fact of Romney's Americanism. Never a peep. 

But, boy, do Romney and his verbal henchmen love bringing it up in their constant round of slurs against the President, about how he's "foreign," how he doesn't know what means to be an American, to his claim of birthright citizenship is someone a street hustler's "con." We've heard it all, this ugly rant from high and low that never ends.

And so, my fellow Americans on the right, get this: Before you start playing umpire, consider your own performance in this contest. Can you honestly say you're proud of the words your crowd has used? Can you honestly say this is good for the country — to bark over and over that the other guy who doesn't share your politics is also deserving of having everything fair game, from his birth to his church attendance to his basic American loyalty? 

Do you really feel proud? 

Let me finish tonight with this.  

I don't know about this guy Romney. I'm not at all sure he likes this new business of his. He liked working at Bain. People say they liked him there. He was happy making big money, making it fast. He liked that.  

He doesn't seem to like this new business, this "wanting to be president" business. He wants to be president, for sure, but it's the getting there part he doesn't like, and the politics that's sure to come should he win.  

Because we know one thing, and we didn't learn it recently: it's that politics doesn't end when someone reaches the White House. Barack Obama also could use more political ability than he's shown dealing with the Congress, getting it to do what he wants. 

So what's with Romney? The minute he got separated from Paul Ryan this week, he went dead again — deadly, dull. Is this really what he wants to be doing? 

Is he doing this for love? Is he a politician because he loves what he's fighting for, what he believes this country needs? Is he really devoted to the solutions he's offering? Is he? Or does he just want the title, just wants the position, the historic status? 

One thing we've learned: presidents who really like the job of getting to the White House tend to be the ones who enjoy being there, and those who enjoy the work of president tend to be the best at it.

Let me finish tonight with this new Republican ticket: Romney-Ryan.  

Sounds right. Very alliterative. Better than, you know..."Good and Pawlenty," or "Wake-me-up-from-a-long-sleep...Romney...Portman."

Doesn't have quite the color of Romney-Rubio. Now that has some real cache, real café leche. Or Romney-Jindel — that's got music to it, the aroma of a fresh beignet at the Café du Monde.  

So it's Romney-Ryan, somewhere in the middle between a "Hail Mary" and an over-the-middle flea flicker. But here's the problem, and it's showing up already. Romney picked a conviction politician and that, ladies and gentlemen, Romney is not.

Ryan believes in things. He's a devotee of Ayn Rand — a believer in the individual out there on his or her own, a real individualist, and his budget shows it: pullbacks in spending on people in need, more incentives for people on the make, corporate tax cuts on top of Bush tax cuts with a big squeeze on the old, and the old and poor to pay for it. Ayn Rand would love it: less dependency, bigger rewards for the winners.  

But here's the problem. Belief is not something Romney is known for. Conviction is alien to him. Romney, his people say, is a "data miner." He doesn't start with a truth; he digs and digs and tries to find what to do based on the data he can "mine."

Not exactly a leader, not exactly a person of conviction, not even close to being a Ryan or an Obama. Ryan believes government should stay out of our lives. Obama believes it has a vital, corrective role in a society that would otherwise be driven by the market, by profit-seeking. 

What does Romney believe?  

Well, we thought for almost two days this weekend he believed in Ryan and what he stands for. Now, as of last night on 60 Minutes, we know he likes the sound of the ticket "Romney-Ryan," but not if it means actually saying something, meaning something, believing something beyond the one Sacred Grail on which Mitt Romney has set his heart to get himself named president. 

Let me finish tonight with this: I don't know anybody who's impressed with this campaign so far.

I'm talking about both candidates. Romney seems like a guy trying desperately not to make another mistake, hoping that the economic numbers will win it for him if they get just a little bit worse and he can avoid blowing it — after all these years of running — for just a few more months.

Now can you think of anything less inspiring than that? A guy just trying not to crash, hoping that the economy will do it for him. 

Obama, to be fair, hasn't exactly been all that inspiring either. I know times are tough and he can't just play defense, and I know that means hitting his rival in the shins but, like you, I remember that wonderful poster from the first time with that picture of him looking upward and that single word: "Hope." 

Hope is what this campaign has lacked. Romney's basically calling for a "return to normalcy," all this "restore our future" stuff. That's what his party promised back in the early 1920s before giving us, thanks to Harding and Coolidge, the Roaring Twenties followed, before the end of that decade, by the Great Depression. 

Romney is now in search of his Coolidge. He already has his theme, which is precisely what Harding ran on: a government atuned to the wants and needs of business, a government that knew its place when it came to corporate power, which is basically to stay out of the way and let those big boys make money.

That's what you hear his supporters and donors want; that's what you can be sure Romney stands ready to give them. As for Obama, who I still believe has the brains and conscience to lead, seems to have settled on a single goal this summer: tear down his rival. Incumbents never look good when they do that. They look good when they ask the voters for a second endorsement, a second term to do what they couldn't get done with one, what they didn't get quite right in one. 

I'm waiting for that moment when Obama or Romney offers something beyond what we've gotten before. People really want it. America is built on the promise of something better. The guy who gives that, the candidate who paints a credible, blazing picture of something bold and true, is going to get the brass ring. The one who plays it safe — and here's where I'm letting my heart speak — will not. 

I didn't get interested in politics at the age of five to watch two guys avoid being leaders. Let's hope the conventions shake this thing up. Let's hope we start hearing about the sharp difference in direction these two candidates are going to take this country, because the evidence suggests it's going to be huge. 

Let me finish tonight with this.

Jack Kennedy once said he felt sorry for his presidential rival Dick Nixon because Nixon could never decide who he really was. On every public occasion, he had to decide how to present himself. In other words, which Nixon to be. Should he be the high-toned statesman or the rabid partisan? He always had to sweat that decision right there before the Klieg lights.

Now, fast forward to today and today's presidential rivalry.

Imagine how hard it is being Mitt Romney. "Let's see, which one am I supposed to be today? Am I the Tea Party champion, the hater of Obamacare, the crusader bent on tearing into the Nation's Capitol and tearing down everything Obama built, starting with that terrible health care plan based on...Oh, oh..based on my health care plan in Massachusetts...?"

You see the problem? 

But if it's hard being the candidate who at least gets to call the shots day to day, imagine trying to be a spokesperson for this guy. How would Andrea Saul know how much trouble she'd get into by saying what she just did about that man in the latest Obama ad who lost his wife to cancer after getting fired in a Bain Capital operation? "To that point, if people had been in Massachusetts, under Governor Romney’s health care plan, they would have had health care."

Didja hear that? That that poor fellow's wife might be alive today if the whole country had what Mitt built in Massachusetts; that presumably the country would be better off if it took the lead from what Romney had done. 

How was Ms. Saul to know that it's not right to say what Romney, the candidate, said years ago before he was a candidate: that the country should take Massachusetts as a model when it comes to health care? How could she know that such a public admission is, in the words of a late Nixon spokesman, "inoperative." 

So what a day this has been — the day that we can salute the Romney team in the person of Andrea Saul for saying what we've been saying for a year: that the "Mitt Romney" that Mitt Romney is selling out there is not the Mitt Romney his own chief spokesperson is now admitting to be the very same Mitt Romney who governed Massachusetts and did what his new friends keep telling themselves he should never have done, which just happens to be something he should be bragging about — not hiding under bed.

Let me finish tonight with this. 

I see a little friction developing over whether former governor Sarah Palin should speak at the Republican National Convention. I say, "Let her speak!" Let her bring down the house with that history lesson of hers about how Paul Revere did that midnight ride of his to keep the Brits from taking away our guns. 

I say, "Let 'em all speak!" 

Let's get U.S. Congresswoman Michele Bachmann up there to launch her crusade against "anti-American" Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives and those Muslim Brotherhood agents in the office of the Secretary of State. 

And let's not limit this.  

Newt deserves a turn. He can remind us how women shouldn't serve in combat, unlike men who he says are natural fighters because we have a God-made urge to go out and hunt giraffes. 

And how about having Texas Congressman Louie Gohmert, Iowa Congressman Steve King, and Donald Trump give another chorus of the latest "birther" theories?

And Allen West, who says there are 78 to 81 Communists among the Democrats in Congress.

And Sharron Angle to explain how we can use "Second Amendment remedies" if we don't like what the other speakers have to say. 

And Christine O'Donnell, to deny the "witch" charge. 

And what about those other folks on the right? Let's hear Frank Gaffney explain why the government is infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood, starting with the people around George W. Bush. And Glenn Beck to call the President a "racist" again. And Rick Santorum to say again that Mitt Romney is "the worst Republican in the country" to run against Obama. And Rush, the underwater walrus, to do that dance of his.  

And when all these voices are serenading us from every corner of Tampa, when the country can hear all the crazy cacophony of the right, when they can hear the loud screeching of bedlam on primetime, they will know what awaits them should this election take their turn.

And what could we call this symphony of the absurd? How about "Caveat Emptor"? Let the buyer beware, because this is the bedlam that could, just five months from now, be ruling the republic.